Constitutional Interpretation

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court and the one that decides and interprets whether laws or acts are constitutional. Simply put, they interpret whether a law is constitutional or not based on what they think the constitution means. Because the constitution doesn’t explicitly or definitively state anything, this interpretation can lead to many differing point of view. Some supreme court members opt for a strict approach to this document, whereby the words of the founders are meant to be taken literally and at face value, and anything that isn’t explicitly expressed in the constitution is not something that can be derived as such. Others argue that the founders couldn’t possibly have put every specific rule or
For example, these conservative justices are more likely to view the second amendment as something that is set in stone with nothing left to be inferred. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. This is the literal meaning of the words, but liberal justices, those who adhere to a looser Constitutional interpretation, argue that we can’t take the words at face value and should consider the context of not only when the Constitution was written, but also of the culture we live in today. We can use the second amendment as a guideline on how to look at laws, but they are not infallible and should be open to modern interpretations. These people are known as loose constructionist, which is “one favoring a liberal construction of the Constitution of the US to give broader powers to the federal government.” (Merriam Webster) As stated, these justices tend to be more liberal and favor a more progressive agenda than strict
Judicial activism is the practice of overturning laws passed by elected officials. In this way the courts have more power and influence over the country, as they can shape the laws that are passed to potentially fit their agenda. This activism can take place on both sides of the political spectrum and isn’t specific to one party. Rather, this activism merely refers to a court that exerts more influence and plays a role more in opposition to Congress and the President. Judicial restraint, on the other hand, “occurs when courts defer to the will of the people as expressed through legislative majorities.” (273) One style isn’t necessarily better than the other, as sometimes activism is needed when Congress tries to implement something unconstitutional, regardless of political agenda. Similarly, restraint is needed when a law has been passed that isn’t constitutional. It may not conform to an individual justice’s political views, but as long as it is constitutional this doesn’t matter. The courts are supposed to be unbiased and non-partisan, and even if this doesn’t always happen in practice, it is a good rule to adhere